now THAT makes more sense...perhaps I missed a previous comment
regarding the fact that the spring was not the right (same) physical length.
tnx
ptegler
On 3/2/2020 3:59 PM, Michael Porter wrote:
> On 3/2/2020 1:45 PM, Paul Tegler wrote:
>>
>> Having studied this over and over again, even have gone as far as
>> redesigning the whole timing system (during a F.I and full wasted
>> spark conversion)� ... and with simple physics behind me I can
>> comfortably say your empirical data has to be flawed....no nice way
>> to say it.
>>
>> simple physics.... a tighter (stronger) spring will not extend as far
>> as a lighter spring under the same weight applied.
>>
> Wasn't it Randall who said early on that the main spring, though
> stiffer, was loose in its connection, which would account for the
> quick advance off idle?� In the case of the advance/idle retard
> mechanisms, the object was to get the engine at idle to burn off
> residual fuel in the exhaust manifold by retarding timing, but there
> was also a need for getting the advance up quickly since that was
> essential for off-idle performance, and slack in the spring mounting
> would accomplish that.� Only when that slack was taken up would the
> stiffer spring come into play and slow the rate of advance with rpm.
>
>
> Cheers.
>
--
Paul Tegler
ptegler@verizon.net www.teglerizer.com
** triumphs@autox.team.net **
Archive: http://www.team.net/pipermail/triumphs http://www.team.net/archive
tox.team.net
|